What Happens if the Police Damages My Car During a Search?

Police officers commit millions, if not billions, of dollars in damage to private property each year. The exact numbers, though, remain unclear, partially because many innocent victims of police searches are too scared to come forward and partially because most courts refuse to hold police officers accountable for their actions. Unfortunately, despite rising anger over police brutality and law enforcement’s overreach of power, little seems set to change in the near future.

If the police searched your vehicle and caused considerable damage to it or your personal property, you may believe that you have cause for legal action against the officers and their department. Unfortunately, even if you do take your case to court, you are unlikely to obtain a favorable outcome.

Interpreting the Fifth Amendment

If you have done your research, you may have found hope in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which, along with similar provisions of the document, prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without justly compensating the property owner. Specifically, the provision states that “[private property] shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Moreover, and seemingly in your favor, the Supreme Court has ruled time and again that that very provision is in place to protect single individuals from bearing public burdens, and to ensure that, in the consideration of justice, there are certain burdens that the public should bear as a whole. Many states wholeheartedly agree with this interpretation and so have adopted similar guarantees in their own laws.

While the constitutional protection seems to leave little room for interpretation, interpret it many courts do. In fact, many courts have denied claims from innocent third parties that arise after police officers damage or destroy private property — including vehicles — while they execute their official duties. To rationalize their decisions, the courts have upheld that the police do not conduct individual searches for “public use,” completely disregarding the fact that, when police do apprehend criminals, they do so to benefit society as a whole.

Moreover, the courts routinely find that damage caused during a search is not so much a taking as it is a “tort,” the latter of which do not allow for inverse condemnation proceedings. Rather, to recover under a tort claim, an injured party must prove that the government entity acted unreasonably, which is far easier said than done.

The Fourth Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Searches

In your quest for justice, you may have also stumbled upon the Fourth Amendment, which protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. While many people interpret this to mean that law enforcement cannot conduct a search without a warrant, this is not necessarily the case. There exist several exceptions that render a warrantless search lawful, including the following:

The police have an arrest warrant for a person who they reasonably believe is inside the vehicle at the time of the search
The police receive permission to conduct the search
A passenger of the vehicle has suffered, or is about to suffer, significant physical harm if the police do not intervene right away to prevent it
The driver or a passenger of the vehicle threatens to breach the peace and only an immediate search will prevent said breach from occurring

If none of the above apply to your situation, and if the police did not have a warrant to search your vehicle, there is a strong possibility that the courts will deem the search illegal. Though, in the event of such a ruling, the police department should be liable to pay for the damages it caused during trespass, indemnity rules often protect law enforcement against adverse legal action.

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in a Vehicle

As if it is not enough that the courts routinely interpret the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as they please, past rulings all but removed the “reasonable expectation of privacy” protection of the Fourth Amendment. Per the rulings, individuals have a lesser expectation of privacy in an automobile because its primary function is to transport them, and because, in seldom cases, it serves as either a residence or repository for personal belongings. Moreover, the purpose of a vehicle is to travel along public roads, where its contents and occupants are always in plain view. Though many people use motor homes as both a residence and a place to house their possessions, the courts extended the diminished expectation of privacy to these vehicles as well.

Understandably, the reduced expectation of privacy only expanded the power of police to conduct warrantless searches of automobiles. Though police officers must still have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search, past rules have provided them with several loopholes. One such loophole is the “Terry-type” search loophole.

If a police officer stops a vehicle on reasonable and articulable suspicion or probable cause of a safety or traffic violation or some other criminal activity, then the law considers the vehicle and its passengers under seizure the moment it comes to a stop. The driver and passengers may challenge the constitutionality of a stop but, in return, police officers have the right to conduct a “Terry search” — or pat-down for weapons — of any person within the vehicle. To exercise this right, the officers must demonstrate that they had reasonable belief that the subjects of the search were likely armed and dangerous.

Even in a situation in which an officer feels a Terry-type search is necessary, the law does not grant him or her the power to conduct a baseless search. Of course, as with other aspects of the law, there are quite a few exceptions. For instance, a search becomes justifiable in the following situations:

If an officer decides to arrest one or more vehicle occupants
Once an officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband
Once an officer orders the impoundment of a vehicle

Moreover, if an officer spots a container, piece of luggage or another closed compartment within a vehicle he or she stops, and if he or she has reasonable suspicion that said object contains contraband of any kind, he or she has the right to conduct a warrantless search. This is the case regardless of who the container belongs to.

Laws Offer Few Protections

Unfortunately, few legal protections exist to protect vehicle owners against unreasonable or damaging searches that officers of the law commit. Because of the many loopholes in what protections do exist, the courts are likely to view almost all searches that officers conduct as “reasonable,” and, therefore, said officers are exempt from having to pay the “just compensation” that the Fifth Amendment guarantees.

What Can You Do About It?

Just because the courts have done little in the past to protect individuals against unreasonable — i.e., damaging — searches and seizures does not mean that you should stand by silently after the police cause damage to your vehicle or personal belongings. As law enforcement comes under fire more frequently for questionable behavior, departments and regulatory agencies may become more inclined to take corrective action. You will never know what may become of your case until you try.

Understandably, filing a complaint against a police officer or his or her department may seem like a scary and overwhelming endeavor. Get the help and support you need by contacting Fielding Law today.

Sources:

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1382&context=wmborj

Legal Information Institute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment#:~:text=The%20Fourth%20Amendment%20of%20the,Oath%20or%20affirmation%2C%20and%20particularly